BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 105 of 2014
Date of Institution : 05.08.2014
Date of Decision : 27.02.2017.
- Manish aged 3 years minor son of Shri Aad Ram
- Abhishek, aged 8 years minor son of Shri Aad Ram
- Meera wife of Shri Niku Ram
- Niku Ram son of Shri Ram Dayal
Minors through applicant no.3 being their grand mother, all residents of village Malia, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Divya Jyoti H.P. Gas Service, Sirsa Road, Ellenabad through its proprietor.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Petroleum House 17, J. Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai- 400020
- Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., LPG Regional Office, Post box No.5, Rohtak Road, Jind.
- Raja Ram son of Birbal, Jaat, R/o Shop No.86, Nai Mandi, Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
- National Insurance Company Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager, with which the respondent no.1 and 3 have insured their concerns against customers risks, vide policy no.420700/48/13/2000000524 w.e.f. 05.03.2014 to 04.3.2015.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. S.S. Goyal, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3.
Sh. C.L. Nuhiyan, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
Sh. Ravinder Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.5.
ORDER
The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties and the minors Manish and Abhishek complainant are being represented by Smt. Meera their grand mother.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that Shri Aad Ram son of Niku Ram, aged about 35 years, resident of village Malika, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh was employed as a salesman on the petrol pump of opposite party no.3 situated in the area of village Nimla, Rampuria road and he besides doing the work of salesman also used to stay in the room which was attached with the petrol pump and was a full time worker and was getting salary of Rs.6000/- per month. He was doing all types of works relating to the petrol pump. A cooking gas stove and cylinder was also kept in the room which was provided by the owner of petrol pump and Aad Ram used to cook his food in the room. The gas cylinder provided to him was issued from H.P. Gas agency and lastly cylinder No.183196PARFLPGWC33 3 liter Max WP 166 MP TP was issued by opposite party no.1. It is further averred that on 12.2.2014 at about 6.00 a.m. the deceased Aad Ram in order to prepare tea tried to light up the gas stove but there was leakage of gas from the gas cylinder on account of defective gas cylinder and all of a sudden the fire took place, as a result of which Aad Ram received serious burn injuries and died at the spot. The police was informed and a rapat was also recorded on 12.2.2014. The gas cylinder was taken into possession by the police and the post mortem was also got conducted. The aforesaid gas cylinder was issued by H.P. Gas agency, Ellenabad and manufactured by op no.2 The op no.1 is distributor of ops No.2 & 3. It was the duty of ops No.1 to 4 to provide gas cylinder free from all defects and the ops ought to have make it sure before connecting it to the gas stove that there is no leakage or any defect in the cylinder or regulator. But the distributor company had not assured any safety measures in this regard which resulted into mishap causing the death of Aad Ram. The deceased Aad Ram was 35 years of age and was having a very good physique and was not suffering from any disease or vices. He was getting salary of Rs.6000/- per month and had very high prospectus in future as well. The deceased had a large family to support. The complainants No.1 & 2 are minor sons whereas complainants No.3 & 4 are the parents of deceased Aad Ram who were dependent upon the deceased in all respects. It is further alleged that the distributor of the LPG gas cylinder has not displayed on the notice board about the provisions of payment of compensation to the victims of such mishaps which is mandatory. The ops are required to display even the name of the insurance company as well as the address of the manufacturer on the notice board. But the op no.1 is not observing any mandatory requirements in order to defraud the innocent victims. The ops No.3 & 4 are just rustic villagers and are not aware of intricacies and they had not been apprised of their rights by anyone including the police or the op no.1. The police had simply hushed up the matter by recording a statement that there is no immediate negligence on the part of anybody. But the fact remains that inspite of clear allegations regarding the defective gas cylinder, the police did not bother to register the case against the distributor and the officials of the manufacturing company who are bound to prove a leakage free cylinder to the consumers. The complainants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.19,95,000/- on account of death of Aad Ram. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed reply raising various preliminary objections. It has been submitted that in absence of any expert report in support of alleged grievances of the complainant regarding leakage of gas from the cylinder, no liability can be fastened on the basis of mere allegations. The complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary party. The agency of answering op is insured with National Insurance Company, Sirsa from 5.3.2014 to 4.3.2015. It has been further submitted that Sh. Aad Ram was never listed as a consumer of answering op no.1 nor he is holding the connection in his name. In case, he was using the gas cylinder of Hindustan Petroleum that would be tantamount to unauthorized use. The domestic LPG cylinders are supposed to be used by the registered consumers only. The other occupier, if any, get the cylinder from anywhere that would be termed within the definition of illegal act. The answering op for the first time came to know about the alleged incident after receiving the summons from this Forum. Had the matter earlier been reported to the answering op, the same could be investigated/ verified about the alleged version of complaint. From the perusal of the contents of the complaint it is difficult to believe that the cylinder stated to be used belongs to Hindustan Petroleum. Further more, the ops are very careful about their cylinders and as per the norms of the company all the cylinders are being checked, inspected and verified at the time of filling of the gas. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Ops No.2 &3 in their separate written statement while taking the above said stand as taken by op no.1 have also asserted that the report/ proceedings conducted by the police regarding the incident dated 12.2.2014 is totally silent regarding defect in cylinder. The complainants have drawn the inferences that the gas cylinder was defective or alleged leakage of gas from the cylinder only on their own presumption. Simply because of leakage of gas from any gas cylinder, it cannot be said that gas cylinder was defective. It is very much necessary for a consumer to take appropriate steps while using the cooking gas stove as well as gas cylinder as leakage of gas may depend upon use of inferior quality of gas pipe or hole in pipe used for gas supply to gas stove as well as due to leakage of regulator used for the purpose and apart from it, there are many other reasons like mishandling of gas stove by the human being. In the present case, the above reasons are highly applicable and complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has been further submitted that answering ops were never informed about the alleged incident and due to lack of information, no investigation was conducted by the officials of the company and as such, it cannot be ascertained that spurious cylinder was of ops’ company or not.
4. Opposite party no.4 filed written statement and submitted therein that it is admitted that Aad Ram now deceased was an employee on his petrol pump and he was residing in a room located near the petrol pump. But he was not a full time worker at the petrol pump of answering op. It is wrong that a cooking gas stove and cylinder was provided to him by answering op. The answering op has no role to play in the alleged occurrence and there is no fault on the part of answering op. The answering op has wrongly been impleaded as a party in the present complaint. Nikku Ram father of deceased alongwith Atma Ram, Sawanta Ram and some other persons were very well present at the time of alleged occurrence and their statements were recorded by the police and post mortem was also conducted in their presence.
5. OP no.5 i.e. National Insurance Company on being impleaded as a party filed written statement raising various preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. It has been submitted that complainant have not furnished any proof in support of their contentions and have not given any detail in respect of the gas cylinder i.e. consumer number, gas company, cylinder serial number etc. If there would have been any alleged leakage of gas, then the same should have been noticed before using the same as there appears special smell from LPG. It appears that a false excuse of defect in the gas cylinder and leakage of gas has been created by complainants for making false ground for filing this false complaint. There was no occasion for the complainants to approach the answering op and to make such illegal request and there was no question for admission of same. It has been further submitted that op no.1 purchased an insurance policy for the period 5.3.23014 to 4.3.2015 and paid premium to the answering op for the risks namely Fire and Allied perils on stock of all kind of filled and empty LPG cylinders and/or pipes and/or gas stove, regulators and/or computer (stock in showroom of Rs.1 lac and stock in godown for Rs.15 lacs), godown building of Rs.8 lacs and burglary and house breaking, cylinder in transit and money in transit etc. So, in view of the scope of the above insurance policy, the answering op is not liable to indemnify the insured in any manner because neither the consumers nor customers of op no.1 are covered under the above policy.
6. By way of evidence, complainants produced affidavit of Smt. Meera complainant Ex.C1, copy of post mortem report Ex.C2 and copies of statements etc. Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R2. OP no.5 produced affidavit Ex.R3 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R4. OP no.3 produced his affidavit Ex.R5.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainants in order to held liability of any of the opposite parties have not proved the basic and main thing that the gas cylinder in question was defective and there was leakage in the gas cylinder. The point that which of the opposite parties is liable and responsible to give compensation to the complainants was to be seen after the main allegation of the complainants is proved that gas cylinder was defective and was leaked but the complainants have not proved it by leading reliable and cogent evidence. When there is no specific evidence that mishap occurred due to the leakage in the gas cylinder when there are so many reasons of fire i.e. inferior quality of gas pipe and leakage of regulator, it cannot be said that fire took place only due to leakage in the cylinder. The complainants have not placed on file any expert opinion in this regard to prove that the reason of fire was leaked cylinder and the opposite parties No.1 to 3 were also not afforded an opportunity to get inspect the cylinder in question as there is nothing on record to prove that after incident any of them were informed in time and they had an opportunity to get inspected the cylinder. It is the specific stand of the opposite party no.1 that answering op for the first time came to know about the alleged incident after receiving the summons and therefore, the right of the ops no.1 to 3 to get investigate the matter has been prejudiced. So, there is nothing on record to prove that fire took place only due to leakage in the cylinder in question. The authorities cited by learned counsel for complainant in cases titled as Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Thakur & Ors. ( (2015) CPJ 451 (NC) and Gajendra Nayak Vs. Sangrami Gas & Anr. IV 2005 CPJ 487 (Orissa State Commission, Cuttack) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in those cases it was proved that cylinder was defective. Similarly, the case law titled as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dharam Pal III (2010) CPJ 377 (NC) is also not applicable because in that case it was held that appellant failed to have technical examination of cylinder but in the present case as already mentioned above the ops no.1 to 3 were not given an opportunity well in time to have technical examination of cylinder.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 27.02.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
